cybernationsfandomcom-20200215-history
Talk:Legion-Valhalla War
GOONS apology I added the GOONS apology to the Legion in the events Henry19 21:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC) The FAN Issue FAN deleted I remioved all references to FAN stating FAN was allied with Legion. FAN stated they were supporting their Allies in this conflict, they did not say the Legion was their ally! DelSolid 02:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC) FAN added again Right, but obviously they were regarding Legion as their ally in this war. How could they be allied with people they're fighting against? FAN deleted again Wrong. FAN is not allied with anyone in this conflict! As a member who was present when this post was created I can say with 100% certainty that it does not state that FAN is allied with Legion. Please read every word of the post you are referring to. At no place does it saw WHO FAN's allies are. It simply states FAN's support for it's allies in the conflict. You are assuming we meant Legion. We did not. It was a satire. some people thought we were referring to Legion, some thought we were referring to WUT. A few actually got the joke. DelSolid 19:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC) :Point taken, though I would still regard FAN as a member of this conflict. ::As a member of FAN, I do not. FAN is at war with NPO. There are some hangers-on but the vast majority (99%+) of our wars are directed at NPO. Legion is at war with GOONS, \m/ and Valhalla so we are not even shooting at the same people. While we may enjoy watching people hurl CM's at GOONS and \m/ we still recognize that our goals are not common. Hence we have no horse in this race. DelSolid 20:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC) :::All right look, there's a solution to this. I'll just add a little bullet point saying FAN is also fighting WUT, but as part of a separate conflict. - CirrusOfMalla 13:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC) ::::User:Chaosman keeps editing out the note. This is clearly an issue that needs to be addressed somehow, since different people keep coming in and writing different things about it. Chaosman: If you don't like the bullet note that's cool, but please propose some other way of handling the situation. - CirrusOfMalla 14:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC) :::::Perhaps it would be better to have the bullet point saying that FAN is fighting WUT, which includes . Your initial bullet point where it says "also fighting WUT" suggests that in this conflict WUT as a whole is fighting. Legion & Allies I do not think that this part should remain in the wiki: "At the time of this conflict, the FAN-WUT War was still raging. As a result, some in the cyberverse consider FAN an ally of Legion in this war, while some consider the two conflicts to be separate." That has been said in an article below, it does not need to be mentioned twice and being that FAN was not a combatant in any sense, that the article should remain and the notice removed. ~User:Chaosman : I don't have a problem with that. Mentioning it in the text rather than the alliance lists is fine w/ me as a long term solution. But there's also the problem of constant edits being made by random folks who come onto the wiki. That bullet is there not so much for strictly informational purposes, but also to keep an endless stream of editors from putting FAN in and taking it out, as was happening before that bullet was inserted. IMO we should leave that bullet point there for a week or so until this ceases to be such a current event and fewer people show up ready to make edits, then take it off. Once things get quiet I plan on removing the two notes at the top of the page as well. - CirrusOfMalla 23:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC) :: Should it be removed now that the war has ended? -User:chaosman ::: Well I was thinking early next week, but if someone were to edit it out before then I wouldn't bother putting it back. - CirrusOfMalla 02:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC) The Initiative The entire Initiative did not declare war. Therefore it is misleading to make a "The Initiative" subset of Combatants unless there is a note indicating that the other WUT alliances didn't declare war. Since that note keeps being edited out, I've simply removed the WUT subset from Combatants and listed the alliances individually. - CirrusOfMalla 14:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)